Figured I should create a thread with an eye-catching name, so that everybody stays apace with things.

There have been a few questions posited by people with regards to the Naval enhancement's interactions with specific cards, as well as on other topics. Those are being cleared out by asking from Damon/Nate, and here are links to some of the results:

From the Naval and Q&TR Thread:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=18&efcid=4&efidt=814893

Cowed stops all use of the Naval enhancement from that character. Lead By Example allows navalling into the challenge, after 2 characters have been declared through the normal framework methods (this also applies to Orell, I think). Three questions related to that thread still pending for answer, I'll post info on those once recieved.

From CardgameDB:

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/5583-new-player-questions-round-3/page__st__600

Apparently attachments going moribund from cards being removed from play does not happen passively, but rather immediately. Probably some interesting ground there to consider. Oh, and Val cannot be triggered when drawcapped (in order to force discard from the top of your deck, instead of hand).

Suggestion: This thread could be used as a place to collect similarly obtained rulings, so that we don't have them splintered around in various threads that get buried over the years.

There was once talk of Maester Kerwin and if he was able to cancel claim and I asked from Damon.

" I am interested of how I should use Maester Kerwin and what kind of limits his ability has. His ability reads "Response: kill Maester Kerwin (cannot be saved) to cancel any effect that chooses 1 of your ironborn characters as its only target." Is his ability only limited on card effects such as the card No Quarter or can he be used to cancel noncard-effects such as claim 1 military? "

and got a respond of " Maester Kerwin cannot prevent military claim . "

Ire said:

military claim is not a card effect HOWEVER there is a trick that some experienced players might pull off to exploit the kerwin card and save an ironborn character from being killed by military claim. see, after winner determination, right before (immediately at the same time really) that you would normally choose said character to satisfy the claim, choose master kerwin instead.

Robby Stark said:

I really hate to clutter up this thread because of WWDrakey's original intent by it, but that does not work with claim replacement effects like Pyat Pree who lets the opponent choose the character to be killed as Military claim. A Kerwin ruling is at least relevant for that type of MIL claim.

Kerwin says "any effect", not "a card effect" or "a triggered effect". If claim is not an effect, what is it? i suggest resending the question with the claim replacement situation.

Khudzlin said:

It would mean that Claim is a game mechanic which affects the game state, but would not be impacted by cards that explicitly refer to "Effects". Yes, it means cards like Red Vengeance are poorly worded, but actually appropriately templated. For reference:

" Response: After you lose a challenge as the defender, kneel 2 influence to cancel the claim effect of that challenge. Then, choose an opponent to satisfy the claim of that challenge as if he or she had lost the challenge as the defender. "

So you see it referred as "claim effect". This should have said just "the claim" as the current wording uses spoken English to refer to the effect of claim, which is perfectly acceptable in spoken English but implies claim is an "effect" in AGoT legalese, which we have just clarified it isn't. It is, for some odd reason, referred to as "the claim" in the second sentence instead of "claim effect". This would mostly appear to be inconsistent editting.

Question:

Brienne is attacking, goes undefended and the defender has Bungled Orders Revealed. When the effect on Bungled Orders happens, the defender chooses to reveal City of Spiders (having a City of Soldiers in the used pile). Does the effect from City of Spiders (copying City of Soldiers) happen and a character get killed?

Answer:

Brienne only stops bolded triggered effects. City of Spiders is using trigger to show when a passive is supposed to initiate, 'When revealed' effects are not triggered effects.

Question:

Regarding Braided Screamers. If I have Braided Screamers in play, and I play Dothraki Outrider by kneeling an Eastern Fiefdom and spending two gold from my gold pool, can I trigger the Screamers' response? The Outider had a cost of 3, but I reduced the cost to 2 with the Fiefdom, and Screamers does not say "printed cost." So I am unsure.

Answer (Damon Stone):

Vaapad said:

That is so awesome and broken at the same time.

Vaapad said:

Nice concise answer, too. Awesome.

Question:Does the 'Any House except X' deckbuilding restriction on the new Prayer events allow the cards to be played with the 'Neutral Faction' house card?

Answer:Yes, the Neutral Faction does not have the House affiliation of the prohibited house so they could use all of the prayers.

From Vaapad in the Blood Magic Ritual thread :

Vaapad to Damon via the rules link:

"How does Blood Magic Ritual interact with a character that has the "No Attachments" keyword? I can see it two ways: 1) the "No Attachments" character enters play, BMR cannot attach to it, BMR is discarded, and the character remains in play unconditionally; or 2) because a player cannot successfully resolve the entire response on BMR if he chooses a "No Attachments" character, that character is not a valid target for BMR in the first place. Please let me know which, if either, of those is correct. "

Damon's reply: "1."

From stormwolf27 in the "Can you much and more with only 2 cards left in either yours or opponents deck?" -thread .

Question:

Can you use Much and More when one or more player(s) has less than 4 cards in his/her deck and just reveal what's left, add one to their hand and "shuffle" the rest together?

Answer:

Yes.

WWDrakey said:

Since this got bumped, I'm going to bring up that he doesn't indicate if BRM actually enters play. What was the concensus on that? I assume it was "yes, it enters play".

I thought the FAQ clears that one up. If a shadow attachment cannot be legally attached or its response is canceled, it did leave Shadows, but it did not enter play. (FAQ entry below.)

doulos2k said:

So it wouldn't trigger Black Cells, etc? I'm only asking because it didn't feel like that was the concensus the last time this was discussed, but I'd be glad if it is now.

The answer to that (and the similar question about King's Landing) was that the card has come out of shadows, which is all these locations are looking for, whether it comes into play or not.

J_Roel said:

So why is what Doulos quoted relevant? It explicitly says the card does not enter play.

Right, you asked two different questions and got two different (not conflicting, mind you) answers. Does the attachment enter play when it's response is cancelled? No, it is not considered to have entered play. Can you trigger passives and responses to the card leaving shadows? Sure, why not? It has left shadows, as is evident by the fact that it was in shadows and no longer is.

J_Roel said:

So the templating "comes out of shadows" is being defined as "When a card is chosen for the Shadows framework action as the card to be brought into play from the Shadows play area"?

Well the card was brought out of shadows, regardless of if it's effect was successful. So they are saying it was brought out of shadows, but it never entered play. King's Landing and BC's looks for "cards coming out of shadows" not cards that "come out of shadows and entered play"… so the thought is they did come out of shadows, regardless of their destination, so you can still trigger those effects.

I don't know if anyone else was wondering this, but naval enhanced characters cannot be declared as naval attackers/defenders when knelt during Battle for the Shield Islands.

Here's my email and reply:

"Plot: After the dominance phase this round there is an epic phase during which each player may initiate a single challenge of his choice. Characters with 1 or more enhancements may be declared as attacker or defenders while kneeling.""

Well, since the naval mechanic requires them to kneel as part of the trigger, that pretty clearly follows from the text of the event.

Alando said:

I don't know if anyone else was wondering this, but naval enhanced characters cannot be declared as naval attackers/defenders when knelt during Battle for the Shield Islands.

Here's my email and reply:

"Can kneeling characters be declared as Naval attackers or defenders during the Battle for the Shield Islands Epic Phase, in order to trigger the Black Sails agenda for example?

The relevant text from the event:

"Plot: After the dominance phase this round there is an epic phase during which each player may initiate a single challenge of his choice. Characters with 1 or more enhancements may be declared as attacker or defenders while kneeling.""

"No. they can only be declared as regular attackers or defenders."

Right, in order to be considered a [naval] attacker or defender, they must kneel using that player action game mechanic (it is not a character ability, remember). this is also why characters who do not kneel to attack and/or defend will have to kneel outside the normal declaration framework to be considered [nava] attackers or defenders (and if you already declared them as a regular attacker/defender, you cannot then kneel them to turn on the naval mechanic in the same challenge).

Also, in this specific example, for those of you who might ask, they do not have to have the enhancement on the icon for the challenge being resolved, just have at least 1 [naval] enhancement on any challenge icon(s).

stormwolf27 said:

Oh for the love of… Did you HAVE to point this out?!?! Clearly a typo as it makes no sense to not let standing [Naval] characters NOT participate in all challenges and let kneeling ones participate.

The question is, what was the intent? Standing and kneeling [Naval] can participate in all or this is missing the "for which they are eligible" portion? So annoying…

I'll bring this up with the NYC meta. I assume they will go with a more conventional interpretation for Saturday (eligible clause) if it comes up.

Edit: I hate you!!! (because I forgot to add it before I hut publish!)